[Nicolas06]

So if Pentax wants to attract the pros she has to offer pro glass and that includes long tele primes (like 500/4, 600/4) or even superb zoom teles like the famous 250-600/5.6 monsters as she was offering in the past.

If Pentax doesn't release (or even announce) such a lens soon, it means that either they released a pro FF camera for entousiasts and hobbyists (and in that case K-1 might be an overkill) or leave people that consider switching to Pentax think like biz-engineer. Pentax doesn't provide any long lenses for pros so Pentax is out of question... This is not the way to grow a company though for sure!

Nobody buy theses lenses you know... And as being the best way to grow a company or not, this is a ridiculous claim. You can make lot of money targeting any kind of market.

The least problem of Pentax is the lack of a 600 f/4.

[x4rd]

So if Pentax wants to attract the pros she has to offer pro glass and that includes long tele primes (like 500/4, 600/4) or even superb zoom teles like the famous 250-600/5.6 monsters as she was offering in the past.

In my opinion Pentax does not have an AF system suitable for fast action / nature / sport photography. Personally I would love to see fast primes for portraiture and landscape (50/35/24/20 or 18)

[Reed]

Lenses that make market share growth are consumer grade primes and zooms. That are the products that attract new people to the system. Specialized very long tele or ultra wide lenses are not among any brand bestsellers. For every one 1.4 prime sold there is ten 1.8 or slower primes. For every constant 2.8 zoom lens there was at least twenty of variable aperture zooms sold. And that is only from my own experience in camera market. There is a reason why above consumer grade lenses are not so often updated-they sell in much smaller numbers, and batches have to pay for themselves before there is a reason for making any updates. What Pentax need to do, and I believe they are pretty aware of that its to lure new customers into their system, and this is the reason they did 55-300 PLM, new silent drive 18-50WR, now its time to make also updated affordable primes. And of course high grade primes that will sell in numbers higher than 10 pieces a year or two.

[redpit]

Nobody buy theses lenses you know... And as being the best way to grow a company or not, this is a ridiculous claim. You can make lot of money targeting any kind of market.

The least problem of Pentax is the lack of a 600 f/4.

Totally pointless comment from your part.

You say nobody buys these lenses. Not true. I have friends shooting Canonikon owning 500/4 and 600/4 lenses along with the 1.4X and 2.0X TCs, so you are wrong.

I didn't say it is the best way to grow a company you should read a post before you reply on something that was not even implied by me. I clearly stated that not offering pro glass for a pro camera is meaningless because Ricoh-Pentax representatives have stated that it's their goal to attract new advnaced and pro photographers. As biz-engineer said you check the lens that fits your needs and then decide on the body to mount it on. So automatically Pentax is out of question for pro shooters using long teles. If you feel that is no big deal its your opinion.

I disagree that the least problem of Pentax is the lack of serious long glass. On the contrary, I believe its one of the most important holes in Pentax system and now that the W, UW and normal primes have found their way to the selves this gap is showing even more...

[MatKus]

Lenses that make market share growth are consumer grade primes and zooms.

This is only part of truth.
Another part is people want to buy stuff, that proffesionals use. And ofcourse since they can't afford 600f4, they'll buy some 18-300, but first there must be some pros using those expensive lenses and telling other they like this system just to show this system is good.

[Tatouzou]

Totally pointless comment from your part.

You say nobody buys these lenses. Not true. I have friends shooting Canonikon owning 500/4 and 600/4 lenses along with the 1.4X and 2.0X TCs, so you are wrong.

I didn't say it is the best way to grow a company you should read a post before you reply on something that was not even implied by me. I clearly stated that not offering pro glass for a pro camera is meaningless because Ricoh-Pentax representatives have stated that it's their goal to attract new advnaced and pro photographers. As biz-engineer said you check the lens that fits your needs and then decide on the body to mount it on. So automatically Pentax is out of question for pro shooters using long teles. If you feel that is no big deal its your opinion.

I disagree that the least problem of Pentax is the lack of serious long glass. On the contrary, I believe its one of the most important holes in Pentax system and now that the W, UW and normal primes have found their way to the selves this gap is showing even more...

I agree with Nicolas 06: the market for FF high performance ultra telephoto (>500mm) is a niche market that most enthusiasts or pros wont never buy into.

It adresses only a few pros shooting sports or papparazzi, or wildlife, and some wealthy hobbyists.

These lenses are >$/€ 5000, thus if you occasionally need one, just rent it, with a matching body if you are invested in a brand that dont offer it.
If you need it every other day, buy it with a matching body, and then decide if you are better running two ILC systems or switching all your gear in the brand that covers all your needs, if it exists.

Pentax has a very small market share in a shrinking market. What many of us want is that Pentax will still be in this business in the coming years, which means they must carefully choose what are their priorities.

IMO, the most obvious issue in Pentax system is a lagging AF-C tracking. Offering tomorrow a much improved AF-C tracking experience, at least on par with the best mirrorless or with entry level Nikon gear, must be their R&D priority.

As regards lenses, they do need to offer affordable modern FF DFA prime lenses with standard apertures (the same as in the film era), compact size and lightweight, and fast and silent AF. The most obvious gaps are in the most common focal lengths and apertures (24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 135). No need for a lot of R&D on the optics, Nikon and Canon offering in this kind of lenses rely on film era designs, and I dont think that film era Pentax designs were lagging behind.

Offering some expensive huge modern overcorrected state of the art lenses, supposed to be sharp in the corners fully open, like the announced 50 and 85 f1.4, wont fill this gap: these lenses will sell in very small numbers because few customer can afford buying them, and a large part of those who could afford wont want them because they will be too big and heavy. Pentax just needs to have two or three offering in this range to show they can do it.

[Kunzite]

These lenses are >$/€ 5000

8500+ € for a 500mm f/4, 11-12000+ € for a 600mm f/4.

[pres589]

Agreed on film-era optical design being useful on today's digital bodies. I keep thinking that the FA20 and F28 with DC or PLM focusing and restyled externally to look like the DFA100 or HD DA15 (as examples) and called DFA's would be a great thing for k-mount land. Time will tell what they do.

[Aussie]

Totally pointless comment from your part.

You say nobody buys these lenses. Not true. I have friends shooting Canonikon owning 500/4 and 600/4 lenses along with the 1.4X and 2.0X TCs, so you are wrong.

I didn't say it is the best way to grow a company you should read a post before you reply on something that was not even implied by me. I clearly stated that not offering pro glass for a pro camera is meaningless because Ricoh-Pentax representatives have stated that it's their goal to attract new advnaced and pro photographers. As biz-engineer said you check the lens that fits your needs and then decide on the body to mount it on. So automatically Pentax is out of question for pro shooters using long teles. If you feel that is no big deal its your opinion.

I disagree that the least problem of Pentax is the lack of serious long glass. On the contrary, I believe its one of the most important holes in Pentax system and now that the W, UW and normal primes have found their way to the selves this gap is showing even more...

Thanks redpit
My point exactly but you've expressed it more articulately than I.

---------- Post added 03-29-17 at 04:50 AM ----------

We don't speak of a $500 lens but more of a $8000-$15000 lens. The kind of lens that alone cost more than all the other gear you have combined.

Well, no it doesn't. I've been using Pentax gear for 40 years and, in that time, have collected a lot of gear. A change to Nikon/Canon would mean spending a lot more than $8-$15K to replace everything I have. Not to mention the learning curve to switch to an entirely new system. To be honest, I am surprised at the negative reaction to my and a few others' comments on our desire to have Ricoh add this sort of lens to their Pentax product line. I fail to see how adding this lens could be a problem for those who don't want one. I suspect that if Ricoh committed to developing and marketing this sort of lens they would be more likely to also commit to other high quality lenses as well.

---------- Post added 03-29-17 at 04:54 AM ----------

I agree with Nicolas 06: the market for FF high performance ultra telephoto (>500mm) is a niche market that most enthusiasts or pros wont never buy into.

It adresses only a few pros shooting sports or papparazzi, or wildlife, and some wealthy hobbyists.

These lenses are >$/€ 5000, thus if you occasionally need one, just rent it, with a matching body if you are invested in a brand that dont offer it.
If you need it every other day, buy it with a matching body, and then decide if you are better running two ILC systems or switching all your gear in the brand that covers all your needs, if it exists.

Pentax has a very small market share in a shrinking market. What many of us want is that Pentax will still be in this business in the coming years, which means they must carefully choose what are their priorities.

IMO, the most obvious issue in Pentax system is a lagging AF-C tracking. Offering tomorrow a much improved AF-C tracking experience, at least on par with the best mirrorless or with entry level Nikon gear, must be their R&D priority.

As regards lenses, they do need to offer affordable modern FF DFA prime lenses with standard apertures (the same as in the film era), compact size and lightweight, and fast and silent AF. The most obvious gaps are in the most common focal lengths and apertures (24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 135). No need for a lot of R&D on the optics, Nikon and Canon offering in this kind of lenses rely on film era designs, and I dont think that film era Pentax designs were lagging behind.

Offering some expensive huge modern overcorrected state of the art lenses, supposed to be sharp in the corners fully open, like the announced 50 and 85 f1.4, wont fill this gap: these lenses will sell in very small numbers because few customer can afford buying them, and a large part of those who could afford wont want them because they will be too big and heavy. Pentax just needs to have two or three offering in this range to show they can do it.

I agree about the lagging AF-C tracking...but the most obvious scenario for needing this is with a long/fast lens shooting wildlife or sport...committing to both would improve both.

[redpit]

To be honest, I am surprised at the negative reaction to my and a few others' comments on our desire to have Ricoh add this sort of lens to their Pentax product line. I fail to see how adding this lens could be a problem for those who don't want one. I suspect that if Ricoh committed to developing and marketing this sort of lens they would be more likely to also commit to other high quality lenses as well.

-I agree about the lagging AF-C tracking...but the most obvious scenario for needing this is with a long/fast lens shooting wildlife or sport...committing to both would improve both.

Exactly that! It's like me disapproving the new DFA 50/1.4 or the superb 15-30/2.8 because I might rarely need them. Pentax offers the really great DFA 100 macro lens but many still want the revamp of the legendary 200mm macro lenses (me included). A new DFA 200/4 lens would cost about $2000, so what? Those who want it or can buy it will get it. Does it mean that by releasing a new macro no other lenses will be released in the future or at the same time? Or do you believe that by releasing a $1300 DFA 85/1.4 lens there will be queues of ecstatic Pentaxians outside the camera stores going crazy about it?

Despite that those already covered focal lengths with still in production lenses need new high quality glass, I agree. What about the gaps in the lens offerings and specialized lenses that doesn't exist anymore and keep photographers away from Pentax? I also don't understand why all this negativity, where it comes from?

[photoptimist]

So if Pentax wants to attract the pros she has to offer pro glass and that includes long tele primes (like 500/4, 600/4) or even superb zoom teles like the famous 250-600/5.6 monsters as she was offering in the past.

If Pentax doesn't release (or even announce) such a lens soon, it means that either they released a pro FF camera for entousiasts and hobbyists (and in that case K-1 might be an overkill) or leave people that consider switching to Pentax think like biz-engineer. Pentax doesn't provide any long lenses for pros so Pentax is out of question... This is not the way to grow a company though for sure!

When would a wedding photographer need a 500/4? Or a corporate events photographer? Or a real estate photographer? Or a food/product/fashion photographer?

I'd bet the vast majority of "pros" have never used and never needed such long, bright glass even if there are a few pros (e.g., sports photographers) that depend on them.

[pres589]

When would a wedding photographer need a 500/4? Or a corporate events photographer? Or a real estate photographer? Or a food/product/fashion photographer?

I'd bet the vast majority of "pros" have never used and never needed such long, bright glass even if there are a few pros (e.g., sports photographers) that depend on them.

I agree, it seems like the 150-450 was a perfect offering to k-mount land. A 500/4 sounds like something I'd take to photograph out in the bush for Nat. Geographic. And frankly, that market seems all stitched up with Canikon right now, and I think Ricoh is smart to try to hit them where they aren't. Pentax's AF-C AF isn't getting enough positive press and reviews to support going after that market right now anyway.

[Nicolas06]

Totally pointless comment from your part.

You say nobody buys these lenses. Not true. I have friends shooting Canonikon owning 500/4 and 600/4 lenses along with the 1.4X and 2.0X TCs, so you are wrong.

I didn't say it is the best way to grow a company you should read a post before you reply on something that was not even implied by me. I clearly stated that not offering pro glass for a pro camera is meaningless because Ricoh-Pentax representatives have stated that it's their goal to attract new advnaced and pro photographers. As biz-engineer said you check the lens that fits your needs and then decide on the body to mount it on. So automatically Pentax is out of question for pro shooters using long teles. If you feel that is no big deal its your opinion.

I disagree that the least problem of Pentax is the lack of serious long glass. On the contrary, I believe its one of the most important holes in Pentax system and now that the W, UW and normal primes have found their way to the selves this gap is showing even more...

Again long lenses like that are not what most pro use. You friends are maybe all pro or not even, just enthousiasts. There many practice in photography and theses very long prime lenses targe a very specific practice at the expense of being expensive and heavy.

The thing is it quite difficult to make a living photographing wildlife and the few sports where it can make sense are not that many and even sometime sponsored by the brand.

Worse for wildlife the best shots are often made at shorter focal length...

[Nicolas06]

Well, no it doesn't. I've been using Pentax gear for 40 years and, in that time, have collected a lot of gear. A change to Nikon/Canon would mean spending a lot more than $8-$15K to replace everything I have. Not to mention the learning curve to switch to an entirely new system. To be honest, I am surprised at the negative reaction to my and a few others' comments on our desire to have Ricoh add this sort of lens to their Pentax product line. I fail to see how adding this lens could be a problem for those who don't want one. I suspect that if Ricoh committed to developing and marketing this sort of lens they would be more likely to also commit to other high quality lenses as well.

You don't get it, I have no issue about 600 f/4 that Pentax would make the most money... or any other lens like that. The problem is not me or you. You don't like what I say you, that the market is tiny. This has nothing to do with me liking or not the idea of a 600 f/4. This is about the likelyness of it happening and the opportunity for the brand

Making something like a 600 f/4 is a big issue because you can't afford to have distributors all over the world to have at least one each because just that mean you'll have to make a few thousands and need 20-50 years to sell eveything and by that time the gear would be outdated. If it is only available at Pentax Ricoh website and you can't try it before, this will reduce sales.

That's money spent and engineer time + factory time and warehouse space + additionnal repair service cost... Usually the money shall be spent were there the maximum return on investment.

I don't think whatever you say this is on 600 f/4... And it is not like theses are the only lenses that we could think of: official FF 200 f/2.8 and 300 f/4 lenses (DFA, not DA), a 300 f/2.8, a 100-300 f/4, 200-400 f/4, 150-600, 135mm f/2, 70-200 f/4, 24-105 f/4 24-200, 28-300, 15, 20, 24, 28, 35mm... Once you covered all that for FF, revamped all the SDM lenses for APSC, added an APD lens, 1 or 2 with tilt shift, you also grown the 645 echosystem, you expended maybe to mirrorless etc... You may finally find yourself in a situation where 600 f/4 is the best move...

Currently if you are in Pentax and want a 600 f/4 in K mount, your best luck is to look for it used. If you want it new and shiny you may wait 5, 10, 20 years for it, or maybe even not get it at all. Never. If you don't go buy it where it is available, it is admiting you don't need it that much anyway. Not willing enough to find one used or to buy one at Nikon or Canon with a body to match.

You'll complain but that you, not me that miss the lens... That you not me that complain we need it but don't get it and have to live without it because you don't take the obvious decision to get what you claim you want.

[beholder3]

When would a wedding photographer need a 500/4? Or a corporate events photographer? Or a real estate photographer? Or a food/product/fashion photographer?

I'd bet the vast majority of "pros" have never used and never needed such long, bright glass even if there are a few pros (e.g., sports photographers) that depend on them.

+1

And I can say that market data in Germany suggest that even including the lowliest part-time pro who shoots one wedding a year for money the total share of "pros" is 0,5% of camera buyers. Just call them completely irrelevant and focus on the hobbyists/enthusiasts which actually are the only relevant crowd.

And no, my world view does not consider all other advanced enthusiast photographers to be total idiots who buy a camera just because the Lady Gaga of photography has been spotted to use brand X with a long tube lens. People tend to be way smarter than that.

As Nicolas rightfully hinted at, it is complete fairy-tale-world to ignore the fact that a tiny company has very limited production and design and marketing facilities. So it comes down to choosing the three most important lenses, for which the hobbyists are really clamoring for.
An ok'ish 28-300 FF superzoom for somewhat less than $1400 should be much higher on the list for Ricoh than Hello-Kitty type specialty tele lenses which nobody is asking for (and this thread is good proof of nobody relevant really asking for it.).

What is making "people" switch brands? An Instax film camera is. And that is also extremely profitable.